Private schools should be banned!!!!!!!!

So effectively OP is saying:

Oh no david cameron is all for state schools he just wouldn't dare to send hugo to a inner city school though (anywhere in London) He is terrified of sending his kid to a central london school ( not that he lives in a rough area or anything)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/cameron-dreads-sending-kids-to-an-innercity-school-2024375.html?origin=internalSearch ......

x

Education should not be entirely government controlled, because the government has proven that they don't have our best interests at heart. Gove is a wittering imbecile and I am already scared about the influence he will have over my brother's and my education (he's already stopped me from taking January modules for A level next year, heaping the pressure on me in the summer, and came this close to forcing my brother into an eBacc programme that wouldn't suit him one bit).

You say that you don't want the wealth divide and therefore private schools should be banned. This is connoting that all private schools are only attended by the wealthy. OP, you are thinking of the type of 'private school' that only differs from state in that it is fee-paying instead of free. With that, I agree with you to an extent. However, most private schools are selective, filtering out the brightest kids and putting them in a competitive environment. THAT IS A GOOD THING.

I went to a state primary school and spent eight years of my life, in a classroom, bored to tears and learning exactly nothing. Some might say I was just lazy; my year 6 teacher genuinely told me, two months in, "there is nothing more we can teach her" - because they had been trained to teach to an average and I, like many other kids, wasn't the average. I am smart,

but more than that, bad state schools treat you like you are just a number, a part of a quota, and that you are an inconvenience if you do not fit the average. I knew I wanted to go to X (my current school) since I was in year 3, because I was sick of not only being surrounded by people who didn't want to push me (and if people don't push me, I shut down and just sleep through lessons) and kids (and teachers!) who bullied me for being clever.

We need private schools because whilst we should never culture a rich elite of students, an intellectual elite absolutely should be cultured - on the basis of just how bright you are, and not your class, background, or personality.

The school has an ethos of getting everyone to achieve the best they can, but that achievement is subjective to the person.

The wealth divide will not be solved by cutting out state schools. There is a HUGE wealth divide in state schools - the kids who can't afford designer gear, who are on free school meals, get victimised.

Plus, and this is what you seem to be missing a little - NOT EVERYONE IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS IS RICH. NOT EVEN CLOSE. In my year, a minority of people are seriously rich. The average parent of a child in my year is likely in the same financial situation as the average parent of a child in the nearest state school.

Plus, as long as intellect is the focus, bursaries are available. There are girls and boys in my year who are here on full bursaries because they're bright enough to be here but wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise.

There are many of my brother's classmates (even at his very good school) who take their education for granted and don't work at all.

In conclusion: we need private schools. We just need to have it so they are selective purely on the basis of academic merit, and they are open to everyone bright and hardworking enough to get in.

I'd hardly say I have adequate disposable income. Find my post about what my mum earns a year and you'll see.

You appear to be making an argument for grammar schools, not private. Independent schools by definition have to select partly on ability to pay the fees otherwise they won't turn any profit, and that somewhat defeats their purpose as, usually, a business.

Education is a fundamental human right, it is akin to being able to receive medical treatment.

Just feel i should point out but very very very few private schools are run as business's and the majority are charities which arent meant to be profit making.

The ratio of intelligent:unintelligent people on studentroom is approximately 8:20

Its the role of the state to provide basic educate kids

8 of those 20 people would have written that as 2:5

the state provides a free service (like the NHS) which the parents can choose to use. they my choose to use a private service(private school) or supplement the free service with a private service.(tutor) but its the parents choice/responsibility to educate.

No its not, if a child doesn't attend school the parents will be fined because as a child's legal guardian they have to ensure their child revived an basic education where ever that education might be. What about the kids who don't have parents

Firstly, from a psychological approach it is obvious that you have not had access to private schooling, as you would not be having this rant. An person that has had private education, would be for it, as they would see the true benefit of it, It appears that you are simply putting forward an argument because your parents could not or would not allow you to go to private school, therefore you already have a bitter state of mind for being at a disadvantage.

Secondly, I have been privileged to go to a private school with a scholarship, and also to a state school before hand... The disparity in education techniques is ridiculously different for example at private school, they teach you to aim high, that an A* is not the best but 100% is(if you see what I mean) they want you to be confident, independent, and succeed in life. Where as at state schools even though you many be a bright student, they want you to pass not strive, just simply scrape bare basics.... If this mind set was applied to all schools, the large majority would remain average or below par.

Thirdly, it you applied the argument that people born with money should not be at an advantage... that is a communist way of thinking, that everyone should be equal regardless of the fact that even though two families' first generation have the same amount of wealth but one family succeed though pure hard-work and dedication that their child should not have the right to get a better education. Surely we should be making all schooling at a private level standard, rather then bring them down to par standard? Surely money that is spent of second homes for MP and benefits for unemployed migrant with 5 children should be spent on bring the education standard up?

Fourthly, have you been to a private school, do you actually know what it is like to be taught by these "elite" teacher? If you do not, I suggest you get experience of it first hand to see the true value of private education before you argue against it...

Surely we should be making all schooling at a private level standard, rather then bring them down to par standard?

Nobody would argue private education isn't a great thing for an individual to have, anybody who is lucky to have it is incredibly privileged, and is much more likely to do well because of it. So in that way, yes, private education and the elite teaching that comes with it truly is amazing.

But heres the rub, whether you or I end up in a private school with elite teachers and better chances isn't down to us (as children I mean). It is entirely down to our parents' circumstance - that's simply not fair IMO. I couldn't bare if I had private education, to look someone else in the eye and say 'I deserved that more than you did'. Simply couldn't do it. In a progressive and equal society, we are all born equal. To take that famous phrase 'it's equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome' that counts. Sorry, if you start a race an extra 50m in front, that's not a fair race. In the UK today, people born to poor/average income families are much more likely to have kids that don't do as well as their richer counterparts. It isn't communism to admit the link between socio-economic circumstance and educational achievement, just reality.



Sure, I agree. But private schools don't just do well because of better teachers and better equipment. Sociologists generally agree that a large part of their success story is based on a high concentration of kids who's parents genuinely give a larger **** about their child's education than non-private school parents. Private school parents are statistically more likely to help with homework, more likely to discipline when homework is not done and more likely to be educated enough to contribute in a significant way. Mixing kids from all class backgrounds in the same environment, and assimilating 'elite' teachers into the public sector will only make the public sector system better.

Your future should not be predetermined by how much wonga your parents happen to spend on your schooling. Equality sir, is the issue.

I go to a private school. I am not rich. I only pay 50% fees. It really bugs me when people say you have to be rich to go to a private school, there are plenty of cheaper ones around than the likes of Eton etc.

While I disagree with the OP, you are clearly haven't got much understanding of wealth - a large number of people are on free school meals, these people could not afford to pay 'only' 50% fees anywhere and it is these people who are affected and unable to change their situation.

Well done, you're not rich, but you're definitely not poor.